"Love Jihad"
#1
Meena Kandasamy on Love Jihad.

Quote:Hindutva paranoia alone cannot be blamed—after all, such a demand does curry favour with sections who are wary of inter-religious unions because it prevents consolidation along caste and religious lines.
Reply
#2
Such paranoia is common among such fundies world over. It's no different from racism.
Reply
#3
The cadres for organizations like Sri Rama Sene come from the so-called lower castes. These people though against the inter-religious unions are strongly anti-casteists. However, Meena Kandasamy's words gain importance in the context of Gujarat where I have read the goons who help to prevent inter religious marriages also discourage inter caste unions. The way I look at it, the major difference between Gujarat and South Indian states is many middle class Gujaratis now have a feeling of subduing the "guts of Muslims" there and thus are now getting bold enough to regress back to casteist ideas.

Article: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233980
Reply
#4
Yes, I support the right of anyone to be brainwashed into a religion that oppresses women the world over. I'm sure that Islam has a romantic appeal to many men and women. The practices and requirements of Islam are very similar to that of mind control cults, and Hinduism can have less appeal to many who need to be controlled. On the other hand, there are Muslims who hate being controlled and are leaving Islam when possible. We must support the right of these people as well, despite the fact that Islam labels them apostates fit to be executed.

I see this simply as people falling into the slots that fit them the best. It is up to us to provide the right slots for those who are naturally inclined to think for themselves and question stupid beliefs.

While 'Love Jihad' is an oxymoron, we can learn some tricks from religion. There is a desperate need to make atheism, freethought and humanism relevant to people on many levels, including the romantic level. If our movement cannot provide meaningful and fulfilling alternatives to religion, we will forever remain a minority.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#5
(01-Jun-2010, 06:04 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: Yes, I support the right of anyone to be brainwashed into a religion that oppresses women the world over.
Not sure, how this is relevant here. Why only Islam, women fall in love and become second wives in the less controlling caste system too (Recent honour killing incident from Andhra involves a Dalit man and his second wife, a Reddy woman). I suppose some women need to be liberated not only from fear of god but also from their overawe of feudal man. I believe even getting brainwashed into a religion also a symptom of overawe of feudal man.
Reply
#6
(01-Jun-2010, 08:27 PM)manju Wrote:
(01-Jun-2010, 06:04 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: Yes, I support the right of anyone to be brainwashed into a religion that oppresses women the world over.
Not sure, how this is relevant here. Why only Islam, women fall in love and become second wives in the less controlling caste system too

It is completely relevant to me. The point I choose to address is the conversion from Hinduism to Islam, not your point about Hindu paranoia which is obvious, and as far as I'm concerned, unimportant as regards my objectives. It is just not the issue that I chose to address. And I did not say "only Islam". Please show me where I have said this happens in Islam only? Do you know how much I have criticized Hinduism in the past? In fact, in the comment above I clearly have said that people leave Islam too. Its just that conversion into Islam is the subject under discussion here.

Your argument is similar to the arguments of many Hindus who comment on nirmukta asking why we are criticizing only Hinduism. Its a silly argument that assumes that if a person attacks one religion they are excusing the others. This is logically flawed. When we are talking about Islam, the argument is against Islam. Hinduism is just as silly, superstitious and potentially dangerous, but its not the subject that I chose to address in this situation.

This is the second time you have accused me of irrelevance, and this is the second time I've pointed out that there are things that others might find relevant that you do not.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#7
(01-Jun-2010, 08:27 PM)manju Wrote: Not sure, how this is relevant here.

Just to make it clear let me state my position in direct language. You read the article and found Hindu paranoia as the relevant issue. I read the article and see the fact that some people are converting into an oppressive ideology as the issue. I am in this to convert people out of religion. Im very open about this. This is what interests me, and this is why I started Nirmukta. To me, this is the relevant point. Just because something is not relevant to you, please do not assume that it is not relevant to others.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#8
The quote from Meena begins with 'Hindutva paranoia alone can't be blamed' ... thus the way I interpreted the next sentences was 'apart from paranoia'. I'm afraid you and Siddharth considered the main point here as 'paranoia' but my stress was later sentences. I thought they were curious because they went against the perceptions in my region or what I held.

I apologize for calling your points irrelevant. I am yet to come to terms with your arguments that consider wider audience. Maybe I was bit annoyed that they completely overlooked me.
Reply
#9
I think I tend to assume that there is no need for all posts in a thread to be in reference to the starting post. In my experience there are always divergent nodes. In the future I'll try to state the premise clearly. The other thing we can do to avoid misunderstanding is to ask the other person what they mean, and clarify. This point has actually been added to the guidelines, both here and on the facebook group. I'll see if there is a way of presenting them more prominently.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#10
(02-Jun-2010, 12:38 AM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: I think I tend to assume that there is no need for all posts in a thread to be in reference to the starting post. In my experience there are always divergent nodes. In the future I'll try to state the premise clearly. The other thing we can do to avoid misunderstanding is to ask the other person what they mean, and clarify. This point has actually been added to the guidelines, both here and on the facebook group. I'll see if there is a way of presenting them more prominently.

I'm disappointed with your response but I'll leave it at that.
Manju Vadiarillat
Reply
#11
(02-Jun-2010, 12:34 PM)manju Wrote:
(02-Jun-2010, 12:38 AM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: I think I tend to assume that there is no need for all posts in a thread to be in reference to the starting post. In my experience there are always divergent nodes. In the future I'll try to state the premise clearly. The other thing we can do to avoid misunderstanding is to ask the other person what they mean, and clarify. This point has actually been added to the guidelines, both here and on the facebook group. I'll see if there is a way of presenting them more prominently.

I'm disappointed with your response but I'll leave it at that.

I am disappointed in your response to mine. But I'll state why and not simply try to put you down with no explanation.

I have clearly explained what the facts are, why the misunderstanding arose and why there can be many lines of thought in a single thread. I have conceded that others might not realize how these things work, and might assume that all posts must conform to the premise of the first post. I have said that I will be more clear in stating the premise of my statements. Also, I have pointed out that if the premise of a statement is unclear, it is expected of others to clarify what is being meant before accusing them of irrelevance. It is the accusation that is the first act of aggression, not the defense of it. I have gone through this effort in order to create a positive approach towards progressing forward. It is the sort of constructive action that actually helps, not just soothes the ego.

You simply express disappointment at my reasoning with no explanation as to why it is disappointing. This leaves me disappointed in your response as a rational thinker.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)